It ’s a sue - or - be - sued world , or so the attorney would have you consider . You ca n’t get to be as big as Apple and not expect to hear the distinctive slap of lawsuits from prison term to time . That ’s a sound that can only mean another issuing of Under the Gavel , our semi - regular look at who ’s pass toe - to - toe with the folk from Cupertino .
Take a picture, it’ll last longer
Seems like the U.S. International Trade Commission has a newfangled probe every calendar week ( hey , great estimate for a tv set pilot : an intrepid group of noetic place investigators ; call itITC : Washington ) . Now the U.S. way islooking into imagery devices such as digital still and video tv camera and related to software system , base on a charge from Apple file against Rochester - based Kodak .
This , of course , is in response to an on-going ITC investigation into Apple and other smartphone makers instigate byKodak , over cameraphone features . In addition , Apple and Kodak have traded lawsuits , each suggesting that the other has violated its patents . It ’s all so sly : how do we make love how to believe ?
Apple , Kodak , we have it off you ’ll get on the same page in the conclusion , so stop flirting and settle down already . You ’re making this look like the first turn of some dread romantic comedy — ooh , call itPatently Obvious .
Pinch-to-sue
The Loop reports that software program developer SoftViewhas sued Apple for violating its patenton scale Internet content on fluid devices . The patent of invention — number 7,461,353 , naturally — was filed in 2005 and continue fluid devices that let you view the entanglement by zooming and pan out around . The company has filed suit against both Apple and AT&T in the dominion royal court of Delaware , ask for injunctions against Apple and — surprise!—an undisclosed amount of cash . Which we ’re certain is a very reasonable number that ’s mostly zero .
Of of course Apple , one of the most advanced technology companies in the public , had just started developing the iPhone around that meter , or so said Steve Jobs at the iPhone ’s entry in January 2007 . But these guys , they already had the whole “ mobile web web browser ” affair visualise out back in 2005 . How , you might question ? I ’m glad you ask . They provide this bare diagram :
Hey , any ikon that depicts the cyberspace as a gargantuan cloud is a - all right by me . Then again , just one lookat SoftView ’s Websiteshould convince you that these guysknow the cyberspace . Circa 1996 .
Monkeying around
Monkeys , well know fortheir enjoyment of popsicles , do not seem to be as fond of apple . Monkeymedia , a self - described “ rational belongings licensing boutique”—that must be one of those handcart near the mall food court — is sue Applefor contravene three of its “ Seamless Contraction ” patents . ( Admittedly , that sound like a feature that would be handy on a twosome of pants . )
Specifically mentioned in the press release are Apple ’s document summarisation service in Mac OS X , and its RSS readers and video player that “ exhibit multiple versions of textbook and/or audiovisual content ” ( think the article length slider in Safari ’s RSS lector ) .
It probably should n’t storm you that the suit was file in the Western District of Texas , long known to be a favorable arena for rational property lawsuits(whoops , discombobulate it with theEasternDistrict of Texas , which is the IP lawsuit haven ) . The lawsuit announcement contained a affirmation from Monkeymedia CEO Eric Gould Bear ( hold on , the guy in explosive charge of “ Monkeyemedia ” is appoint EricBear ? What kind of genus Circus is this ? ) .
Er , anyway :
“ We can posture by and watch Apple go along to apply our patented innovation without paying , or we can do something about it , ” said Eric Bear , MONKEYmedia ’s CEO .
Whoa , whoa , whoa . That sounds just the slightest bitfamiliar .
“ We can sit by and watch rival slip our patent innovation , or we can do something about it . We ’ve decide to do something about it , ” said Steve Jobs , Apple ’s CEO .
Do you sense that ? Smells like an rational propertycountersuit .
